When you realize that something's destructive, that's usually a good time to cut it out.

Oct 10, 2001

When my brother was about four, he had to go get a shot in his arm. A few days later, my Mum asked him if his arm still hurt. He folded his arm, raised his elbow up over his head, and replied, “It still hurts when I do this.”

...so stop doing that, silly.

Corporations face the same situation regarding Outlook, Windows, and computer virii. I’ve advocated people getting rid of Outlook for a little over a year now, saying that it was the application that was hardest-hit by all the various virii that hit the Web every now and again. Now, other professionals are starting to call for banning Microsoft’s email program. Too many problems that get exploited, they say. Even with a sysadmin who downloads all the latest Microsoft patches, it’s too timeconsuming to take care of the endless fixes, they say. And to that, I add: it could cost more than just some corporate dollars.

Let’s all get paranoid for a minute. Osama bin Laden, the chief suspect in the terrorist attacks in New York, is one sharp cookie. He doesn’t shun technology outright. He knows what’s out there. He gets news, and has been for the last four years and longer. He knows that lots of American companies depend on Microsoft products (rightly or wrongly…that’s a discussion for another day.) Does anyone out there honestly feel okay with putting air marshals on U.S. flights, having increased border checks at the 49th parallel, and sending military resources to central Asia, but -=still=- leaving corporations all over North America vulnerable to attack?

“Our company still gets hit by computer virii when we use Outlook.”

...so stop doing that, silly.

Wake up. Ban Outlook. Don’t just have your sysadmin put a better firewall in place. Don’t just make sure you’ve got the latest patches. Stop using it — at least for a few years, if not forever.

And put your elbow down while you’re at it.

Keywords: | technology | security | email programs |
Permalink

They don't have to be, but they often are. Time to reverse the trend.

Sep 01, 2001

Ever ridden the marriage-go-round? Dizzy, confused, wincing, rather suspicious that the ground will suddenly rise up and smite you…ah, yes, we have another one. Got thrown, hunh? For some people marriage is great fun. For others it’s a relaxing, enjoyable ride. For more and more people, though, it’s become a manic evil funhouse intent on giving them a short but exhilarating ride before settling down to vivisect them literally and figuratively.

Part of the problem stems from early societal perceptions of a marriage. In some early societies, it was little more than a refined cattle trade - just the man would be providing the stud fee, and the woman wouldn’t have to sleep outside. As ‘civilisation’ evolved, the shape and form of marriages changed to include mutual protection and contribution to the well-being of the partnership. Time went on, empires rose and fell, and the societal perception of marriage continued to change. Often, some stipulation of exclusivity was either implied or specified. Sometimes, one partner had more power than the other - heck, in some cases, one of the partners could (or was encouraged) to enter into multiple partnerships simultaneously while the other was barred from doing so, and no one would bat an eyelash. In…oh, about the Renaissance…the idea of ‘courtly love’ was introduced, and a neat new wrench was thrown into the works. Women were given a new illusion to play with, and their male partners had to contend with a whole new set of expectations. (Hallmark must have been started about this time…the patient, farseeing, wretched little bastards.)

Today in most western first world nations, the expectation of marriage has been totally warped all to hell and back by the usual suspects: religion, government, and the media. Problem for these folks is the chimaera’s running loose, and they can’t define it - it keeps moving. Not only that, but sometimes these august bodies contradict each other (and themselves, from day to day…but I digress.) People have traditionally looked to the authority in their community to get ideas of what is accepted and what is not…and now you have these three major forces tugging the poor moops everywhichaway. People have almost been trained NOT to think for themselves, but to play their roles, and everything will turn out alright. Unfortunately…the societal authorities can no longer keep track of their OWN lives. We have to rewrite the book ourselves - and FAST. Isn’t it time we be allowed to decide for ourselves what a marriage is and isn’t? This includes, BTW, same-sex couples, group marriages, and just about any combination under the sun-moon-and-stars.

And before all the same-sex couples start your cheering - SIDDOWN AND SHYADDUP. Using my circle of friends (and their friends, and so on) as examples, same-sex couples don’t do any better in the communication department - they f*ck up partnerships just as much as do people whose unions are socially recognised, legally sanctified, blessed four ways from Friday, and given the Gold Star of Approval. If all countries in the world allowed same-sex marriages and recognised them as valid, the ratio of marriages-successful vs. marriages-unsuccessful would be about the same, give or take a percentage point.

Talk amongst yerselves

One thing that people don’t do, that they most definitely should, is talk with their partners - ya know, the ones that they’re about to enter into a mentally and emotionally binding social contract, even if for a short period of time? - and come to an agreement on what their individual marriage is. (Hint: do this BEFORE, not after, you exchange any rings or step on any glasses.) You may find out that you both want the marriage to be something mutually exclusive but of short duration…say, a decade, or maybe even two or three years. You may find out that while one person wants to have the “spouse, minivan, house in the suburbs, 2.3 kids, and a family pet” kind of marriage, the other person wants someone to share expenses, be there for companionship (physical and emotional), and help out with their plans for world domination (quit sniggering) but doesn’t want to be forced to stay in one place, doing the same work all the time - and that any pets are nowhere in the picture, to say nothing of smallhumans. One person may want to see others while in the marriage, while one doesn’t; or there may be more than one partner involved in the whole megillah to begin with. Or…you may both/all be shying away from marriage, or any kind of a relationship, because you don’t want to be tied down - only to find out that you would both happily roam the entire globe until you’re unable to wander any more. It’s all about expectations and communication within the relationship, people.

Keywords: | sociology | relationships |
Permalink